Holy Trinity Discussion

[LadyVolette]

Trinity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

How can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist AS ONE ENTITY co-equal in "action and will" but Jesus be absent when God was telling Moses what to do?

You either worship 1 God or 3 Gods. So which is it?

Well, Moses was way before Jesus was born, for one thing… it was the Old Testament..God alone spoke to Moses..Jesus is the son of God.. Father, Son, Holy Ghost.. did you not go to Sunday school? You need to get your butt in a pew in the morning, young man lol

 

[OrangeTsar]

400 years after the fact. That’s the very definition of late.

400/2000 is 20%. In what universe is 20% of a time period considered “late”?

 

[Orangeslice13]

400/2000 is 20%. In what universe is 20% of a time period considered “late”?

That may be the weakest point I’ve ever seen anyone try to make on this topic.

So the great, great, great , great, great grandchildren of those who witnessed it changed the belief system and you somehow think that it’s accurate to the original.

Maybe you should stop typing to defend Dogma and seek out the truth

 

[me_grag53]

Well, Moses was way before Jesus was born, for one thing… it was the Old Testament..God alone spoke to Moses..Jesus is the son of God.. Father, Son, Holy Ghost.. did you not go to Sunday school? You need to get your butt in a pew in the morning, young man lol

John 5:18​

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

John 5:19​

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 8:58​

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

 

[OrangeTsar]

That may be the weakest point I’ve ever seen anyone try to make on this topic.

So the great, great, great , great, great grandchildren of those who witnessed it changed the belief system and you somehow think that it’s accurate to the original.

Maybe you should stop typing to defend Dogma and seek out the truth

I understand the need and necessity for people to feel free to challenge accepted Dogma. Heck, I am a Protestant, a term that wouldn’t exist if one Martin Luther wouldn’t have literally put his life on the line by defying the Pope and Emperor Charles V in 1521.
That said, there are very things that Christians can and do disagree on such as Papal infallibility, the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, predestination versus free will, etc. They for the most part still consider each other Christian.
There are however certain core beliefs that are so central to Christianity that once rejected, place one outside of Christianity. One of these is the nature of the Trinity.
You say that 381 was awfully late to finally put into words the “dogma” regarding the Trinity. It was only needed at that time because the Church had to deal with numerous heresies that threatened to remove Christ from his divine and unique status. Chief among these wer the Arians.
So I have no problem with you believing other things about Christ and the Trinity.
I just cannot agree with you that one can believe such things and expected to be in full communion with the Church universal.

 

[Orangeslice13]

John 5:18​

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

John 5:19​

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 8:58​

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

-“I am” isn’t the name of G-d. It’s his status. In ancient Hebrew it means without being or end. Go read the Torah again he say the he’s the existing one and his name is the “G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, this is how he shall be known for all generations “. Now go look throughout history and see what the Hebrew people called their G-d for all generations. Even today we call upon “the G-d of A, I, And J”.

-John 5:19 Yeshua says he’s no G-d. You should believe him.
-Yeshua claims existence status which is consistent with Torah law for the Messiah. This is important because if Yeshua broke the law in any way (he didn’t in my opinion) then he cannot be the redeemer. And your faith is vanity.
By the law of G-d, which is the foundation are set in Heaven (psalms) and never changing (also psalms) you can’t be both kindsmen and kindsmen redeemer. So in order to redeem any who would follow the G-d of A, I, And J it would have to be done by a family member of the authority (G-d) but not G-d himself. That’s why Yeshua is completely unique. Begotten of (not created by) G-d. The DNA of G-d. The authority of G-d but not G-d. And this is how the vastness of scripture teaches it. Plain and simple.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I understand the need and necessity for people to feel free to challenge accepted Dogma. Heck, I am a Protestant, a term that wouldn’t exist if one Martin Luther wouldn’t have literally put his life on the line by defying the Pope and Emperor Charles V in 1521.
That said, there are very things that Christians can and do disagree on such as Papal infallibility, the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, predestination versus free will, etc. They for the most part still consider each other Christian.
There are however certain core beliefs that are so central to Christianity that once rejected, place one outside of Christianity. One of these is the nature of the Trinity.
You say that 381 was awfully late to finally put into words the “dogma” regarding the Trinity. It was only needed at that time because the Church had to deal with numerous heresies that threatened to remove Christ from his divine and unique status. Chief among these wer the Arians.
So I have no problem with you believing other things about Christ and the Trinity.
I just cannot agree with you that one can believe such things and expected to be in full communion with the Church universal.

You get that “Christianity” is irrelevant before G-d?
Salvation has always been by faith. (Believing G-d) that was established in Genesis by Abraham….”who believes G-d and it is accounted as Righteous “ psalms 119 spells out in great detail what “saving faith” looks like. Habaku clearly defines the righteous and those who live in “trusting faithfulness”.

It’s really sad because Mathew 7:21 says that there are Christian’s that think they believe and will be cast out and they are called law breakers.

The trinity is a corruption that crept in later. Personally I don’t think that gets anyone left out as you will be corrected in time but it definitely leads to misunderstanding that results in the M 7:21 situation.

As far as corruption goes if 400 year later doesn’t bother you then the 500 year later addition of snake handling and poison drinking of Mark should be part of your regular routine

 

[Orangeslice13]

@OrangeTsar
I was disappointed that you abandoned the rich man and Lazarus parable conversation. The truth behind that parable is really cool and important even though it has nothing to do with “Hell”

 

[OrangeTsar]

@OrangeTsar
I was disappointed that you abandoned the rich man and Lazarus parable conversation. The truth behind that parable is really cool and important even though it has nothing to do with “Hell”

Sorry. In that particular conversation I could see neither one of us was going to be able to convince the other one. I would be happy to listen to anything additional you wish to add though.
I am sure that none of us has any real concept of what he’ll actually is. But it seems pretty clear that there is such a place (or condition) and that it is not pleasant.
I do Not think Jesus would go to the trouble of mentioning it if it didn’t exist.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sorry. In that particular conversation I could see neither one of us was going to be able to convince the other one. I would be happy to listen to anything additional you wish to add though.
I am sure that none of us has any real concept of what he’ll actually is. But it seems pretty clear that there is such a place (or condition) and that it is not pleasant.
I do Not think Jesus would go to the trouble of mentioning it if it didn’t exist.

That’s the difference between you and me I guess. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I don’t do this to convince anyone. I do tho for me. I’m to refine my beliefs like silver in the fire. The way to do that is to take it out, heat it and beat it then the truth is what is left.
If others read what this and challenge thier own beliefs then it’s good because they will go to their judgement having a better understanding of their beliefs. Those will be their beliefs and not some half truth they heard from some supposed preacher.

As far as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
-no Jewish Rabbi ever taught eternal torment. That’s Greek mythology. When Yeshua taught this parable everyone understood that. Nobody asked about it. In fact the Pharisees knew it was a shot at them. They just didn’t understand what it meant.
-Messiah didn’t care about material wealth. The Rich were the priests who had access to Torah education and the temple. Lazarus represented the people who were not fed Torah and the love of G-d by the Pharisees. What makes this parable special is that Yeshua literally raised a man named Lazarus from the dead and the Rich (Pharisees) men still didn’t believe.
That’s the lesson.

Greek philosophy about hades and the patriarchy aside.


Did you drink your poison and handle your snakes today?
It would not be in there if you weren’t supposed to do it.
(That’s a joke)

 

[lookoutmtn17]

I guess I have to explain Christian ideology to Christians. Well here you go.

So Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. That means yall worship only ONE God. However, that God comes in three different versions (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). This is an ideology called "the Trinity". Christians don't believe these are 3 different people but rather one individual manifesting himself in 3 different forms. That means Jesus is not only the Son but also the Father and the Holy Spirit. So when the Father (aka God) was ordering Moses to take his people out of Egypt that was actually Jesus ordering him. Since Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

I know it's all very confusing but this is the justification Christians make to believe Jesus is God while also maintaining they are monotheists worshiping ONE God instead of three. Going by this logic then the inspiration behind the Old Testament was Jesus because Jesus is God aka the Father.

Get it now?

Link - Good article on Jesus' baptism and the Trinity today on Fox News

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So we agree early Christian’s did not depict Christ as black? Yet, you still claim he’s black?

It was not common for early christians to depict Jesus at all. Similar to how Muslims didn't depict Muhammad. Depiction of Jesus - Wikipedia.

The representation of Jesus was controversial in the early period; the regional Synod of Elvira in Spain in 306 states in its 36th canon that no images should be in churches.[5] Later, in the Eastern church, Byzantine iconoclasm banned and destroyed images of Christ for a period, before they returned in full strength.

However, the few examples there are in the early periods show regional variety. Here's how Ethiopians depicted Jesus.



This from a Church in Lalibela, Ethiopia showing Jesus and the disciples with brown skin and Afros.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

He keeps posting pictures from the walls of tombs that are of red and brown people, who look just like the Egyptians running the tours and then posting random black people who kinda look similar. While ignoring the scientific evidence that conclusively proves he’s wrong.

It’s kinda sad actually.

But what about the hair? You seem to keep ignoring that. Cause lots of different races have dark skin. Indians on average have as dark a skin as most Africans and yet nobody will say they're black. Black people are defined by not only dark skin but also by tightly curled hair. And in those wall murals the Ancient Egyptians were meticulous in how they represented their hair.




The only people with kinky twisted hair like that are black people. And what a coincidence that right next to Egypt is Ethiopia where you can find groups living today who have the exact same hairstyles and hair textures.




Everywhere you go in Ancient Egypt you will see nothing but hairstyles common among black people that are uncommon everywhere else.













Find me a non-black population where twists, braids, locks, and afros are common among the people along with having brown skin. You won't find it. The only populations with the totality of features represented by the Ancient Egyptians are populations that are today considered black.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I mean seriously
Tell me this doesn’t look like the people on the walls of the tombs and temples. When you go on the tours they have locals dressed as the ancients. They look just like the depictions and they are not black.
DNA says they are just under 8% African and the ancient Egyptians were even less.
View attachment 714106View attachment 714107

They definitely don't look anything like the females in Ancient Egypt which in statue form were never depicted without braids.









Once again the hair doesn't lie. The only populations where you will find women with braided hair all the time are populations that considered black.






And I would argue the reddish brown skin of these two black women looks a lot more like the brown the Ancient Egyptians were going for than the paler skin you find common among modern Arab Egyptians.

 

[Ritzwatch]

I have lost track of why any of this matters, if it ever did.

 

[Vol8188]

It was not common for early christians to depict Jesus at all. Similar to how Muslims didn't depict Muhammad. Depiction of Jesus - Wikipedia.



However, the few examples there are in the early periods show regional variety. Here's how Ethiopians depicted Jesus.

View attachment 714223

This from a Church in Lalibela, Ethiopia showing Jesus and the disciples with brown skin and Afros.

Weird you only show us how Ethiopians depicted him and no one else. Are you agreeing most did not depict him as black?

Seems your claim is losing credibility

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Weird you only show us how Ethiopians depicted him and no one else. Are you agreeing most did not depict him as black?

Seems your claim is losing credibility

Read the Wikipedia article. It was controversial to depict Jesus at all early on. Same as how Muslims think it's taboo to depict Muhammad. It's a middle eastern thing.

In the few instances there were depictions of Jesus or Muhammad, you usually saw them depicted in a manner consistent with the population doing the depiction. That's why I showed the depictions of him by the Ethiopians to show you that people just portray religious figures in a manner similar to their population.

For example in Islam one of the few groups to have done depictions of Muhammad and his followers were East Asian Muslims. Which is why the few Islamic artwork there is of Muhammad and his followers looks like this.




You see how Muhammad and his followers are depicted with East Asian features. Obviously that's not how Muhammad looked. But this is what people generally do when they depict religious figures. They tend to portray them to look like their own people. The interesting thing is when they don't do that. That's what makes the 13th century European depictions of the Black Madonna and Child interesting.

 

[MurphyVol]

But what about the hair? You seem to keep ignoring that. Cause lots of different races have dark skin. Indians on average have as dark a skin as most Africans and yet nobody will say they're black. Black people are defined by not only dark skin but also by tightly curled hair. And in those wall murals the Ancient Egyptians were meticulous in how they represented their hair.

View attachment 714224


The only people with kinky twisted hair like that are black people. And what a coincidence that right next to Egypt is Ethiopia where you can find groups living today who have the exact same hairstyles and hair textures.

View attachment 714228


Everywhere you go in Ancient Egypt you will see nothing but hairstyles common among black people that are uncommon everywhere else.

View attachment 714229

View attachment 714230

View attachment 714231

View attachment 714232


View attachment 714233


Find me a non-black population where twists, braids, locks, and afros are common among the people along with having brown skin. You won't find it. The only populations with the totality of features represented by the Ancient Egyptians are populations that are today considered black.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

View attachment 714253

LOL. Outliers don't make the rule. Here's how some East Africans look:



However, he's an outlier. The majority have curly to kinky hair.

 

[Vol8188]

Read the Wikipedia article. It was controversial to depict Jesus at all early on. Same as how Muslims think it's taboo to depict Muhammad. It's a middle eastern thing.

In the few instances there were depictions of Jesus or Muhammad, you usually saw them depicted in a manner consistent with the population doing the depiction. That's why I showed the depictions of him by the Ethiopians to show you that people just portray religious figures in a manner similar to their population.

For example in Islam one of the few groups to have done depictions of Muhammad and his followers were East Asian Muslims. Which is why the few Islamic artwork there is of Muhammad and his followers looks like this.

View attachment 714249


You see how Muhammad and his followers are depicted with East Asian features. Obviously that's not how Muhammad looked. But this is what people generally do when they depict religious figures. They tend to portray them to look like their own people. The interesting thing is when they don't do that. That's what makes the 13th century European depictions of the Black Madonna and Child interesting.

I don’t see how the depictions of people 1,200 years after the fact can be the most interesting to you. Unless of course you’re simply trying to pursue an agenda and have no concern for the actual truth.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It was not common for early christians to depict Jesus at all. Similar to how Muslims didn't depict Muhammad. Depiction of Jesus - Wikipedia.



However, the few examples there are in the early periods show regional variety. Here's how Ethiopians depicted Jesus.

View attachment 714223

This from a Church in Lalibela, Ethiopia showing Jesus and the disciples with brown skin and Afros.

They are as clueless as anyone about what Yeshua looked like. The Jesus that people typically think of is modeled French prince.

Yeshua was an ugly dude. The prophet Isaiah wrote that G-d made him ugly so that no one would desire him.

Kinda puts a monkey wrench into the Da Vinci code. If you’re stupid enough to believe that too

 

[Orangeslice13]

But what about the hair? You seem to keep ignoring that. Cause lots of different races have dark skin. Indians on average have as dark a skin as most Africans and yet nobody will say they're black. Black people are defined by not only dark skin but also by tightly curled hair. And in those wall murals the Ancient Egyptians were meticulous in how they represented their hair.

View attachment 714224


The only people with kinky twisted hair like that are black people. And what a coincidence that right next to Egypt is Ethiopia where you can find groups living today who have the exact same hairstyles and hair textures.

View attachment 714228


Everywhere you go in Ancient Egypt you will see nothing but hairstyles common among black people that are uncommon everywhere else.

View attachment 714229

View attachment 714230

View attachment 714231

View attachment 714232


View attachment 714233


Find me a non-black population where twists, braids, locks, and afros are common among the people along with having brown skin. You won't find it. The only populations with the totality of features represented by the Ancient Egyptians are populations that are today considered black.

Been there. Seen them in person. Been to nearly everything you can see in Egypt. Have seen the Egyptian people dressed in period clothes and they look just like the drawings on the wall. Reposting the same incorrect pictures of black peoples who don’t really look like the drawings doesn’t help your argument.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I have lost track of why any of this matters, if it ever did.

It doesn’t.
Only low IQ individuals believe that skin pigment matters.
In this case it’s just a matter of fact. Egyptians are less than 8% African. Then and now

 

[Orangeslice13]

View attachment 714253

You know what we call that.
“JewFro”

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I don’t see how the depictions of people 1,200 years after the fact can be the most interesting to you. Unless of course you’re simply trying to pursue an agenda and have no concern for the actual truth.

It's interesting because it's breaks from the usual pattern of people depicting their religious figures in the same image as themselves. So the question we have to ask ourselves is why Europeans in the 13th century decided that Jesus and his mother were black rather than white like themselves? My argument is its because these Europeans were trying to be historically accurate.

You have to remember at what point in history this was. It was after the Crusades and during the period of Moorish control over the Iberian Peninsula. So Europeans were familiar with how people from the Holy Land looked like. When the Europeans returned to Europe they started depicting Jesus and Mary in the same phenotype as the natives they encountered during the Crusades. The people in Palestine at that time and during the period when Jesus lived were dark skinned. Which is why the Europeans post Crusades started portraying Jesus and Mary as black.